[Accessibility-testing] Debrief of Dec 5 2018 meeting between jmac & Deborah

[Austin Seraphin]

I suspect that the blind have had more experience with parser based
interactive fiction, especially at this point in time, though I don't
know for certain.


On 12/5/18 12:30 PM, Jason McIntosh wrote:
> (The email server that Deborah uses is rejecting mail from iftechfoundation.org again, so I’ve cc:ed her on this; please include her address manually on reply-alls, for the present.)
>
> I had a half-hour chat with DK this morning, on the direction of our testing prep. Summary:
>
> • Deborah feels the ANBtO survey is intimidatingly long. The initial questions about general accessibility self-reporting are good, as are the game-specific questions that are also about a11y per se. But we might want to pare back the questions about the gameplay itself. (E.g. all the “Did you reach this room?” and “Did you find this treasure?” questions.) They are probably kind of redundant given all the a11y questions, and they’re of secondary concern to us anyway.
>
> • We should be more clear to testers about which web browsers we’re expecting them to use. If someone really wants to roll up with an old MSIE or whatever (maybe because their AT requires it), then we should welcome that, but invite them to contact us about it so that we’re aware of the exceptional circumstance.
>
> • We should also be up-front with testers about our findings so far (e.g. Gargoyle working poorly with screen readers)
>
> • Let’s instruct testers to play Twine of Access first, if they’re gonna play both games. Both it and its survey are  significantly shorter than the Inform game, so let’s lead with that and its nice sense of accomplishment before dropping testers into the shadowy opera-house basement…
>
> • Testers who happen to already be familiar with parser IF, and who want to attack the ANBtO with their own favorite OS + interpreter + AT setup, should be welcome to do so. (So long as they thoroughly describe it to us!)
>
> (An aside from me: Should we expect that a self-selecting population of test-hungry video gamers with disabilities might be more likely to have parser IF experience than the general public? I don’t think we should *assume* that but I’d be interested to see if we find ourselves pleasantly surprised anyway…)
>
> • Deborah recommends that we give testers OS-specific options for running the two games, and then let testers take whatever path they wish from there. (This includes trying something else, if they pick a path that completely doesn’t work, or replaying a game on many platforms if they happen to feel so driven… but we won’t expect that by default.)
>
> In general, Deb cautions us against trying to second-guess ourselves when it comes to maximizing coverage. This is the first time this community’s done anything like this, so we don’t know where the gaps are going to be. I’m sitting here sweating about interpreter platforms, but maybe the real coverage issues will be about AT, or operating system, or something else entirely.
>
> So, she recommends just making the tests as tester-friendly as possible, collecting and processing the data, and then deciding what should be collected next (and how) based on that.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accessibility-testing mailing list
> Accessibility-testing at iftechfoundation.org
> https://iftechfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-testing

-- 
Austin Seraphin: https://AustinSeraphin.com